Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stereotypes and Adversarial Justice in Rape Trials

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rape Trials in England and Wales

Abstract

The previous two chapters have begun to demonstrate how rape myths and sexual history evidence dismiss survivors as ‘irrational’ or ‘non-credible’. This chapter now seeks to show how wider gendered narratives are used to justify and reinforce these arguments, adding to the cultural scaffolding outlined in Chap. 3. This is not to say that male survivors are considered credible and rational, only that the narratives observed relate to wider stereotypes about women, and further research is needed into the trial narratives about male survivors. Nor does it mean that women are a homogenous group; the chapter will also unpack the, albeit limited, observation data on intersecting stereotypes about ethnicity, social class, and disability. Despite women having complex and nuanced lives, the trials were remarkably consistent in depicting them as delusional, vindictive, or capricious and childlike, all of which are rooted in a stereotype of women as emotional. In order to understand how such narratives were justified by barristers, it is important to examine the adversarial imperative to win and acknowledge the impact of the burden of proof. In doing so, this chapter reveals the multiple inequalities that are both a symptom and a cause of court responses to rape, providing new empirical insights that can further debates in adversarial jurisdictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Although the pilot study (Smith & Skinner, 2012) included a male survivor, he had such severe learning disabilities that his treatment at trial could not be used to examine the treatment of all male survivors.

  2. 2.

    In Scotland, independent corroboration remains a requirement for the prosecution of sexual offences and has been usefully discussed by Chalmers (2014).

  3. 3.

    In particular, only 3 per cent of the general population in the UK is black compared with 12 per cent of the adult prison population. This reveals a particular criminalisation of black minorities and highlights the need for nuance rather than assuming that ‘minority ethnic ’ can be applied homogenously (Lammy, 2017).

  4. 4.

    According to Sutton Trust (2016), 74 per cent of the top judiciary in 2016 were educated at private schools and the same proportion attended Oxbridge. Barristers also disproportionately herald from the same schools and universities, with 78 per cent attending Oxbridge.

  5. 5.

    In particular, sexuality and gender status are likely to impact trials, but none of the observed cases featured these issues and so further research is required.

  6. 6.

    Indeed, 95 per cent criminal cases are dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court (Courts & Tribunals Judiciary, 2017).

  7. 7.

    While Wellman’s (1997) manual is now 20 years old, barristers in their late-thirties would have been educated using these principles and more recent manuals retain a sense of manipulating evidence (see, for example, Bergman & Berman-Barrett, 2008).

  8. 8.

    This is with the exception of Evidential Presumptions under s. 75 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 , which state that under the listed circumstances, the “complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced … and the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it” (s.75(1)). These circumstances include that the accused used violence or fear of violence, the accused was not lawfully detained while the complainant was, the complainant was asleep or unconscious, the complainant’s physical disability meant they could not communicate consent, or if the complainant had been given a substance without consent that would stupefy or overpower them.

  9. 9.

    This accused had repeatedly changed his evidence; beginning with outright denial of sexual contact during police interviews, then admitting some ‘consensual’ contact in his defence statement, before changing the nature of the admitted contact in evidence-in-chief , and again during cross-examination .

References

  • Ainsworth, J. (2015). Legal discourses and legal narratives: Adversarial versus inquisitorial models. Language and Law, 2(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angilioni Report. (2015). Report of the independent review into the investigation and prosecution of rape in London. London: Metropolitan Police Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antaki, C., Richardson, E., Stokoe, E., & Willott, S. (2015). Can people with intellectual disability resist implications of fault when police question their allegations of sexual assault and rape? Intellectual and Development Disabilities, 53(5), 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthias, F. (2014). The intersections of class, gender, sexuality and ‘race’: The political economy of gendered violence. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Sociology, 27(2), 153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar Standards Board. (2017). Bar Standards Board handbook: Including 9th edition of the code of conduct. London: Bar Standards Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckene, T., Forrester-Jones, R., & Murphy, G. H. (2017). Experiences of going to court: Witnesses with intellectual disabilities and their carers speak up. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jar.12334/full

  • Benhardsson, J., & Bogren, A. (2012). Drink sluts, brats and immigrants as others: An analysis of Swedish media discourse on gender, alcohol and rape. Feminist Media Studies, 12(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, P., & Berman-Barrett, S. (2008). Represent yourself in court: How to prepare and try a winning case. Berkeley: NOLO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, S. (2006). Rape and sexual power in early America. Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bongiorno, R., McKimmie, B., & Masser, B. M. (2016). The selective use of rape-victim stereotypes to protect culturally similar perpetrators. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 398–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, B., & Phillips, C. (2012). Ethnicities, racism, crime and criminal justice. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 370–397). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, C. (2009). Reasonable doubt in credibility contests: Sexual assault and sexual equality. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 13(4), 269–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brants, C., & Field, S. (2016). Truth-finding, procedural traditions and cultural trust in the Netherlands and England and Wales: When strengths become weaknesses. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 20(4), 266–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brescoll, V. L. (2016). Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., Horvath, M., Kelly, L., & Westmarland, N. (2010). Connections and disconnections: Assessing evidence, knowledge and practice in responses to rape. London: Government Equalities Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, A., Agha, A., Demyan, A., & Beatriz, E. (2016). Examining criminal justice responses to and help-seeking patterns of sexual violence survivors with disabilities. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, L. (2015). Contact and evaluations of violence: An intersectional analysis of Swedish court orders. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 29(2), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, R. (2010). The investigative interviewing of children and other vulnerable witnesses: Psychological research and working/professional practices. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). Intersections of race, class, gender and crime: Future directions for feminist criminology. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, M., Evans R., & Sanders, A. (2006). Are special measures for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses working? Evidence from the criminal justice agencies. Home Office Online Report No. 01/06 and Home Office Research Findings No 270. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, M., Evans, R., & Sanders, A. (2007). Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and the adversarial process in England and Wales. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 11(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cammiss, S. (2013). Courts and the trial process. In A. Hucklesby & A. Wahidin (Eds.), Criminal justice (pp. 105–125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, J. (2014). Corroboration: Consequences and criticism. In J. Chalmers, F. Leverick, & A. Shaw (Eds.), Post-corroboration safeguards review: Report of the academic expert group (pp. 5–18). Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D., & Munday, R. (2011). Oxford dictionary of media and communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chapleau, K. M., & Oswald, D. L. (2014). A system justification view of sexual violence: Legitimising gender inequality and reduced moral outrage are connected to greater rape myths acceptance. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 15(2), 204–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie, N. (1986). The ideal victim. In E. A. Fattah (Ed.), From crime policy to victim policy (pp. 17–30). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, R. (1998). (Un)Sexy bodies: The making of professional legal masculinities. In C. McGlynn (Ed.), Legal feminisms: Theory and practice (pp. 21–45). Aldershot: Dartmouth in association with Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conaghan, J. (2009). Intersectionality and the feminist project in law. In E. Graham, D. Cooper, J. Krishnadas, & D. Herman (Eds.), Intersectionality and beyond: Law, power and the politics of location (pp. 21–48). Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corston, J. (2007). The Corston report: A review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courts & Tribunals Judiciary. (2017). Judicial diversity statistics 2017. Retrieved from https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-thejudiciary/diversity/judicial-diversity-statistics-2017/

  • Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of colour. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crown Prosecution Service. (2007). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and using special measures. London: Crown Prosecution Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crown Prosecution Service. (2013). Charging perverting the course of justice and wasting police time in cases involving allegedly false rape and domestic violence allegations. London: Crown Prosecution Service Equality & Diversity Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crown Prosecution Service. (2015). What is consent? London: Crown Prosecution Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M., Croall, H., & Tyrer, J. (2015). Criminal justice (5th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doak, J. (2008). Victims’ rights, human rights and criminal justice: Reconceiving the role of third parties. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, R. (2011). Tough or tender: (Dis)similarities in white college students’ perceptions of black and white women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(3), 458–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, K. M., Turchik, J. A., Dardis, C. M., Reynolds, N., & Gidycz, C. A. (2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65(11–12), 761–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, L. (2000). Rape and the adversarial culture of the courtroom. In M. Childs & L. Ellison (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on evidence (pp. 39–57). London: Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, L. (2001). The adversarial process & the vulnerable witness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, L. (2009). The use and abuse of psychiatric evidence in rape trials. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 13(1), 28–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, L., Munro, V., Hohl, K., & Wallang, P. (2015). Rape victimisation and psychosocial disability. Feminists @ Law, 5(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Equality & Human Rights Commission, EHRC. (2010). How fair is Britain: Findings and challenges. London: Equality & Human Rights Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Equality & Human Rights Commission, EHRC. (2017). Public sector equality duty. Retrieved from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/public-sector-equality-duty

  • Erickson, R. J. (2005). Why emotion work matters: Sex, gender, and the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2), 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, Z. (1998). Domestic violence in black and white: Racialised gender stereotypes in gender violence. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 8(1), 1–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, S. (2009). Fair trials and procedural tradition in Europe. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 29(2), 65–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, B. (2013). More than jezebels and freaks: Exploring how black girls navigate sexual coercion and sexual scripts. Journal of African American Studies, 17(1), 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghavami, N., & Peplau, L. (2012). An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(1), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, L. (2017). Tainted witness: Why we doubt what women say about their lives. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gribaldo, A. (2014). The paradoxical victim: Intimate violence narratives on trial in Italy. American Ethnologist, 41(4), 743–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. (1990). Rape and essentialism in feminist legal theory. Stanford Law Review, 42(3), 581–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, J. (2008). The role of the criminal defence lawyer in adversarial and inquisitorial procedure. In B. Grunewald, S. Walther, & T. Weigend (Eds.), Strafverteidigung vor neuen Herausforderungen (pp. 45–59). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, J. (2010). The future of adversarial criminal justice in 21st century Britain. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 35(2), 319–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, B. (2006). Beyond white man’s justice: Race, gender and justice in the late modernity. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. (2002). The adversary trial and trial by judge alone. In M. McConville & G. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of the criminal justice process (pp. 335–351). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jewkes, Y. (2015). Media and crime. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J. (2004). The word of a woman? Police, rape and belief. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jörg, N., Field, S., & Brants, C. (1995). Are inquisitorial and adversarial systems converging? In P. Fennel, C. Harding, N. Jörg, & B. Swart (Eds.), Criminal justice in Europe: A comparative study (pp. 41–56). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judicial Diversity Statistics. (2017). Judicial diversity statistics 2017. London: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keddie, A. (2009). “Some of those girls can be real drama queens”: Issues of gender, sexual harassment and schooling. Sex Education, 9(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammy Review. (2017). An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lees, S. (1997). Carnal knowledge: Rape on trial. London: Women’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, J., Uzelac, G., Horvath, M., & Kelly, L. (2007). Rape in the 21st century: Old behaviours, new contexts and emerging patterns. ESRC End of Award Report (RES-000-22-1679), Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackinnon, C. (2005). Women’s lives, men’s laws. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, L. (2016). Police officers’ perceptions of false allegations of rape. Journal of Gender Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2016.1194260

  • Maier, S. (2008). Rape victim advocates’ perception of the influence of race and ethnicity on victims’ responses to rape. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 6(4), 303–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, P., Hughes, N., Hek, R., Spalek, B., Ward, N., & Norman, A. (2010). Access to justice: A review of existing evidence of the experiences of minority groups based on ethnicity, identity and sexuality, Ministry of Justice Research Series 7/09. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEwan, J. (2005). Proving consent in sexual cases: Legislative change and cultural evolution. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 9(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, E., & Muncie, J. (1996). Controlling crime. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, S., Press, F., & Phelan, C. (2010). The (in)visibility of children with communication impairment in Australian health, education, and disability legislation and policies. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing, 13(1), 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, M. (2004). African American women and violence: Gender, race, and class in the news. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 21(2), 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2017). Court statistics (quarterly) reports. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro, V., & Kelly, L. (2009). A vicious cycle? Attrition and conviction patterns in contemporary rape cases in England and Wales. In M. A. H. Horvath & J. Brown (Eds.), Rape: Challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 281–300). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naffine, N. (1990). Law and the sexes. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, B., Matsuo, H., McIntyre, K. P., & Morrison, N. (2005). Attitudes towards victims of rape: Effects of gender, race, religion, and social class. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(6), 725–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolson, D. (2006). Making lawyers moral? Ethical codes and moral character. Legal Studies, 25(4), 601–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ontiveros, M. L. (1995). Rosa Lopez, David Letterman, Christopher Darden, and me: Issues of gender, ethnicity and class in evaluating witness credibility. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 6(2), 135–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phipps, A. (2009). Rape and respectability: Ideas about sexual violence and social class. Sociology, 43(4), 667–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, A. J., Hlavka, H. R., & Mulla, S. (2017). Intersectionality and credibility in child sexual assault trials. Gender & Society, 31(4), 457–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raitt, F. (2010). Independent legal representation for complainants in rape trials. In C. McGlynn & V. Munro (Eds.), Rethinking rape law: International and comparative perspectives (pp. 67–280). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rattansi, A. (2007). Racism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, A. (2016). The effects of rape myth acceptance and gender role beliefs on perceptions of date rape. Thesis Masters, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. (2007). Patterned fluidities: (Re)imagining the relationship between gender and sexuality. Sociology, 41(3), 457–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringnalda, A. (2010). Inquisitorial or adversarial? The role of the Scottish prosecutor and special defences. Utrecht Law Review, 6(1), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rock, P. (1993). The social world of an English Crown Court. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumney, P. N. S. (2008). Gender neutrality, rape and trial talk. International Journal of Semiotic Law, 21(2), 139–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A., & Jones, I. (2007). The victim in court. In S. Walklate (Ed.), Handbook of victims and victimology (pp. 282–308). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. (2004). The psychology of stereotypes. New York: Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sexual Offences Act 2003. London: HM Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy, E. (2002). Evidence law and ‘credibility testing’ of women: A comment on the E case. Queensland University of Technology, Law & Justice Journal, 2, 157–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields, S. A. (2002). Speaking from the heart: Gender and the social meaning of emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, M. (2016). Rape victim and perpetrator blame: Effects of victim ethnicity, perpetrator ethnicity, participant gender, and participant ethnicity. Thesis PhD, Lund University, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skeggs, B. (1997). Formations of class and gender: Becoming respectable. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, C. (1995). Law, crime and sexuality: Essays in feminism. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (2016). Representing rapists: The cruelty of cross-examination and other challenges for a feminist criminal defense lawyer. American Criminal Law Review, 53, 255–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, O., & Skinner, T. (2012). Observing court responses to victims of rape and sexual assault. Feminist Criminology, 7(4), 298–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, S. (2007). Race and the decision making of juries. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 12(2), 171–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, B. (2016). The impact of class and sexuality-based stereotyping on rape blame. Sexualisation, media & society, 2(2), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, K. (2000). Unequivocal victims: The historical roots of the mystification of the female complainant in rape cases. Feminist Legal Studies, 8(3), 343–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers, S. (2007). Fair trials: The European criminal procedural tradition and the European Court of Human Rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Süssenbach, P., Eyssel, F., Rees, J., & Bohner, G. (2017). Looking for blame: Rape myth acceptance and attention to victim and perpetrator. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15), 2323–2344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton Trust. (2016). Leading people 2016: The educational backgrounds of the UK professional elite. London: Sutton Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sward, E. (1989). Values, ideology and the evolution of the adversary system. Indiana Law Journal, 64(2), 301–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taslitz, A. (1999). Rape and the culture of the courtroom. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temkin, J. (2000). Prosecuting and defending rape: Perspectives from the bar. Journal of Law and Society, 27(2), 219–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Temkin, J., Gray, J., & Barrett, J. (2016). Different functions of rape myth use in court: Findings from a trial observation study. Feminist Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085116661627

  • Thomas, C. (2010). Are juries fair? Ministry of Justice Research Series 1/10. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walklate, S. (2017). Handbook of victims and victimology. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, L. R. (2008). A best practice guide to intersectional approaches in psychological research. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 454–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, K. G. (2010). Too ashamed to report: Deconstructing the shame of sexual victimization. Feminist Criminology, 5(3), 286–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, F. L. (1997). The art of cross-examination. New York: Touchstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, C. M. (2008). Mammy, jezebel, sapphire, and their homegirls: Developing an “oppositional gaze” toward the images of black women. In J. Chrisler, C. Golden, & P. Rozee (Eds.), Lectures on the psychology of women (pp. 286–299). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore, J. (1940). Evidence (Vol. 8). Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilmott, D., Boduszek, D., & Booth, N. (2017). The English jury on trial. Custodial Review, 82, 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamawaki, N., Darby, R., & Queiroz, A. (2007). The moderating role of ambivalent sexism: The influence of power status on perception of rape victim and rapist. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(1), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yancy Martin, P. (2005). Rape work: Victims, gender and emotions in organization and community context. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK

    Olivia Smith

Authors
  1. Olivia Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Smith, O. (2018). Stereotypes and Adversarial Justice in Rape Trials. In: Rape Trials in England and Wales. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75674-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75674-5_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75673-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75674-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation